Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

win2000 prof., 10 connections max. ??.

Last response: in Windows 2000/NT
Share
October 1, 2001 8:58:03 AM

I am setting up a little fileserver for a company. I don't know anything about linux so that is out of the question. I am doing it with win 2000 professional, but i heard that there is a maximum of 10 users connected at the same time. Is this true ? , and is there a way around it exept for buying win2000 server.

<font color=red>duk-tape is like the force, it has a bright side and a dark side, and it keeps the universe together.</font color=red>
October 1, 2001 4:09:03 PM

That's correct, only 10 user connections allowed at once. There is no way around it, legally at least. Maybe you can get Windows NT Server for a lower price than Win2k, I really don't know, but that's about all you can do. Unless you want to setup Win9x as a file server, but it's not something that's going to be very reliable.
October 1, 2001 4:51:13 PM

No problem.
You can connect as many Win2000 machines as you want.
You have to organize them in different workgroups, say Accounting, Engineers (not more than 10 boxes in each).
You will be able to establish resource sharing among them.
Related resources
October 1, 2001 7:46:40 PM

you are allowed 10 simultaneous connections. period.
October 2, 2001 6:19:40 PM

Re > <font color=blue>"you are allowed 10 simultaneous connections. period."</font color=blue>

That's right, sorry, but what about if I just try not to touch the "simultaneous subject" here for a while.

Re> <font color=blue>"there is a maximum of 10 users connected at the same time. Is this true ? , and is there a way around it exept for buying win2000 server."</font color=blue>

Sorry, just answering on the second part of the question "is there a way around ....."

Firstly, not asking why not to use better, obvious solutions. Probably it's going to be temporarily, don't know. Sometimes people wait for a new version, say XP Server.
Not mentioning about the known disadvantages and limitations of peer-to-peer or workgroup networking, and whether it is better to buy a Server for somebody, I'm just trying to answer on "is there a way around it exept for buying win2000 server" first.

As a possibility, say temporarily solution yes, there is a way around. Anyway, there should be someone responsible for the network with Administrator rights, who will do network managing work. So, by switching between different workgroups depends on the tasks, the Administrator will be implementing all kinds of works related to sharing, especialy when there're no needs for everyone in a company to get constant access to the same or all the resources simulteniously. But ... constant access to the Internet, and it's another kind of problem, Internet share.
Again, I was not talking here about the limitations or disadvantages, but about the possibility itself, and one of possible ways in order to try overcome the limitation temporarely. At least what I would do in similar situation.

Secondly, now, because of that well known disadvantages and limitations of workgroup networking in general (not just number 10!), there are basic recomendations on when you'd better follow them and switch into Client-Server network, say buy a Server. It may become a better cost-efficient solution in that situation. I wouldn't deny Linux.
October 3, 2001 8:37:10 AM

The problem that is that there will be no real administrator. The server will be a server for digital pictures. It will be connected on a 100mbit network. The network is from th campus of the royal dutch naval academy. Al the pictures from events we are doing are taken with digital camera's and put on the server. There are 400 students on the network most of them just know where the power button is. So diving them into workgroups is not that easy. This server will just be a normal computer on that network and share files and maybe run a web server, so no internet sharing. The only thing is that 10 connections is not enough. How many connections are possible with win2000 server?
Linux is still not an option beceause the peoples that take the pictures and have to put them on the site only know how a camera works.

<font color=red>duk-tape is like the force, it has a bright side and a dark side, and it keeps the universe together.</font color=red>

<font color=red>The object of war is not to die for your country, but make the other bastard die for his!! (general G.S. Patton) </font color=red>
October 3, 2001 5:15:31 PM

Re: <font color=blue>"The problem that is that there will be no real administrator. The server will be a server for digital pictures. It will be connected on a 100mbit network. The network is from th campus of the royal dutch naval academy. Al the pictures from events we are doing are taken with digital camera's and put on the server. There are 400 students on the network most of them just know where the power button is. So diving them into workgroups is not that easy. This server will just be a normal computer on that network and share files and maybe run a web server, so no internet sharing. The only thing is that 10 connections is not enough. How many connections are possible with win2000 server?
..."</font color=blue>

That's not a problem. Now it is more clear about your initial network requirements.

With 400 clients, in order to save money, you may have to

- order a good design on implementation of your network on a competitve basis from reputable contractors; let them to figure out everything about your server and other needs, including network architecture, configuration, durability, and so on; you will be able to choose the best suitable design;

- build the network by a reputable company, later it may be good to have them as a support contractor;

- and, in order not to make the cadets suffering from all kinds of computer problems and disasters, there should be an Administrator, a person who will be responsible for the network.
And you have to pay him/her good money for good quality support, no matter whether that person is from a network services provider or your own employee, contract or permanent, or on-call service.

Don’t know much in this field, just curious, are there in Navy somewhere a submarine with that ...there will be no real captain? Is it common? :) 

Cheers. :) 
October 3, 2001 10:41:45 PM

Windows 2000 Server doesn't have a limit on connections, but you have to have a CAL(Client Access License) for each computer that is going to be connecting to it to be legal.
October 4, 2001 7:08:07 AM

What is a CAL exacly, and do you need it to be legal or do you need that CAL to let the hole thing work. Most of the computers are win98se or win ME. All the computers are peronal property and i don't know how everybody got ther OS.

<font color=red>duk-tape is like the force, it has a bright side and a dark side, and it keeps the universe together.</font color=red>

<font color=red>The object of war is not to die for your country, but make the other bastard die for his!! (general G.S. Patton) </font color=red>
October 4, 2001 9:50:43 AM

CAL
basically when you buy say windows 98, you buy a liscence to use it on one pc, to install it one another one, you need another license. With 2k/nt, you need a license for each pc that will access this server. When you install 2k server, it will ask if you how it is to be licensed.
Hope that makes sense.

Next time you wave - use all your fingers
October 4, 2001 2:39:05 PM

A CAL is a Client Acess License and you need it to be legal, but not for it to work.
October 5, 2001 7:15:10 PM

What I'm trying to simulate now. If Zwaarst or somebody is interested to know.
I'm in class with twelve Win2000 Pro machines connected through the hub.
From Control Panel>System>Network Identification>Properties we put all the machines into a workgroup with the name Workgroup and renamed all the machines into Pro1, Pro2, ... Pro12.

After reboot all our machines began to see each other. We have created share folders with text files inside, wrote messages.
All Users, Everyone got Full Control for Share Permissions.
Then it became possible to interchange the files, but sometimes somebody has to wait, click again untill the machine will be available to copy a file. The machine is visable doesn't mean that it is contact at the moment.

Not more than 10 simultaneous connections for Win 2000 Pro means that it is still practically possible to share resources among more than 10 Win2000 Pro machines connected together without a Server, without switching between different workgroups, without an Administrator. Time and order is the question here, but we don't feel it with 12 only workstations.
We copied files from every of 11 machines into one computer whithout problem. We could use some more machines on the same connection from another class, but it is not necessary, the idea is clear without that.

Today is Friday, my friend and I stayed in class (only two of us) to practice and we would be glad and have time to simulate other different situations and answer possible questions. (And for the next 4 weeks as well, while we'll be in the Windows 2000 Professional and Server class. Students are welcomed here to stay and instal/uninstal, connect/disconnect, study and troubleshoot all kinds of problems.) :smile:

PS: Before to leave for home I added one more Win2000 Pro workstation to the Workgroup. It worked the same way, it was visable as the 13th, the Pro13 in My Network Places and accessable for transfering files in all directions for the rest of 12 workstations. Of course, we couldn't try to do all the transactions simultaneously and we worked from two workstations at the same time, fast enough without problem. <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by NickM on 10/06/01 10:32 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
October 8, 2001 3:46:41 PM

Re: <font color=green>”…Linux is still not an option beceause the peoples that take the pictures and have to put them on the site only know how a camera works.”</font color=green>

To have a Linux server doesn’t mean that everybody has to learn the OS. But beside the knowledge about a camera, the people must learn basic computer user skills, how to work with files, copy and paste anyway. That’s not a difficulty for users on any modern OS.

<A HREF="http://www.techrepublic.com/article.jhtml?id=r005200108..." target="_new"> Linux helps ease the burn of operational expenses </A> in non-profit organizations also. Money is a very important thing itself, no matter whether we like it or not. People have created a Linux Web server, a Linux firewall, and mail server on legacy server boxes. The additional cost of their project up to this point was almost zero.

Linux is widely used on different computers, from low-powerful old i486 (even i386) home computers to zSeries and S/390 IBM mainframe computers. As a cheaper but highly reliable solution Red Hat Linux has joined the S/390 family of operating systems bringing a wealth of open source applications. Linux for zSeries will support the new 64 bit architecture in real and virtual mode on zSeries servers. The Linux code to exploit the 64 bit architecture. Linux for S/390, currently available on G5, G6 and Multiprise 3000 processors, will be able to execute on zSeries servers in 31 bit mode. Actually, IBM (the number one server supplier worldwide) intends to make all of its server platforms Linux friendly, including AS/400, RS/6000. Netfinity servers are certified under program for Caldera, Red Hat, SuSE and TurboLinux distributions. In addition, selected models of IBM IntelliStations and ThinkPad laptops are now Linux-enabled.

So, Linux is from low end to high top. That doesn't mean that everybody must choose it, but it is a good option for everybody.
October 8, 2001 4:07:03 PM

You could set up a simple FTP server and just let everyone browse to it with their web browser. This would be both simple for the user, allow more than 10 people to access at once, and simple to administer. To add files to the ftp site, simply drop them into the shared folder on the server machine. And since IE5 and 6 display ftp folders like normal file folders from a hard drive, it should be simple enough for even the dumbest users to figure out.
October 8, 2001 4:11:06 PM

I agree.
October 9, 2001 7:03:50 AM

Our plan was also to setup a little websever that let peoples choose a subject and than link them to the FTP-site on the same machine, But by my nolege a win 2000 profesional system only wans to make a connection with 10 computers. It is possible that there are more computers on the network. But with +/- 400 peoples on the network, it is very likly that more than 10 peoples want to download fromthat computer at the same time.

duk-tape is like the force, it has a bright side and a dark side, and it keeps the universe together.

The object of war is not to die for your country, but make the other bastard die for his!! (general G.S. Patton)
October 9, 2001 1:42:36 PM

I"ve had as many as 28 concurrent connections on my win2k box via my ftp server program. I would assume from this that the 10 max connections thing only applies to Windows file sharing, not http/ftp hits. I use Serv-U ftp if that makes a difference.
!